Talk:Emperor of the Romulan Star Empire
Empress/Emperor? After the recent merger, I just thought I should put this up for discussion. Should the two be merged or separate articles? Not against or for really; the Emperor one has more content whilst the Empress had only two appearances in novels I think namely a Double Helix book and the Dark Matter trilogy novels. Plus there was mention by Q about courting a Romulan Empress. Also, didn't Ael t'Rllaillieu become an empress as well? – Darth Batrus 23:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC) :It's the same position, just gender specified, one page seems the best idea to me. --8of5 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC) :It seemed to me that the two should be merged because they're essentially the same post, just with a different form of address for different genders. I suppose if we want to be really specific, we should redirect "Emperor of the Romulan Star Empire" and "Empress of the Romulan Star Empire" to "Emperor or Empress of the Romulan Star Empire," but I think it's easier just to redirect to "Emperor." -- Sci 23:34 2 JAN 2009 UTC ---- "the female consort of an Emperor receives the title of "Empress" -- presumably the equivalent of a Queen consort rather than a Queen regnant" That won't fly. The Empress in the Voyager novels is definitely a monarch, not a mere consort. Furthermore, she is definitely single, otherwise her being wooed by the Shepherd would have been adulterous; and there was NO Emperor in her courtJustinGann 09:54, May 27, 2010 (UTC) :Congratulations. You've discovered that not all Star Trek novels have consistent continuity with one-another, and that Memory Beta, as per usual, refuses to acknowledge the discontinuities that exist between novels and instead tries to shoe-horn everything into one giant continuity. -- Sci 20:42 16 JUNE 2010 UTC ::Well, actually, all Star Trek releases try to shoehorn themselves into one giant continuity. We just follow suit. -- Captain MKB 20:55, June 16, 2010 (UTC) :::As Trek author Christopher L. Bennett notes here, that's just not true at all. ::: There's no "edict" beyond staying consistent with onscreen ''Trek. The internovel continuity was the choice of the editors and authors. We do it because it's fun and creatively useful. But those of us who have stories to tell that are incompatible with the novel continuity have also been free to do so. In addition to the Shatner novels (the latest of which contradicted previous ones) and Crucible, there was the recent The Children of Kings, which was implicitly an alternate-timeline tale of sorts that didn't quite fit in either the canonical or new-movie continuity; and there was Troublesome Minds, which doesn't conflict with the main novel continuity but doesn't reference it either.... But there's no such thing as "book canon." There is the main novel continuity that's emerged over the past decade, and naturally any book set in that continuity will be as consistent as it can with the rest (although occasional inconsistencies do occur despite everyone's best intentions). However, not every book has to be set in that continuity.'' :::So, no, not all Trek releases try to shoehorn themselves into one giant continuity. -- Sci 02:18 22 JUNE 2010 UTC Have you actually read the policy Sci? The second sentence states: "Memory Beta policy is all-inclusive; information from two or more contradictory sources can and should be included, with background notation describing the nature of the contradiction." It's not like we're in denial, there are loads of contradictions, and often they cannot possibly exist in the same continuity (this Romulan Empress one sounds like it could indeed be one of them). But sometimes they can, and because all licensed Trek stuff is built upon the premise that there is one "correct" universe as it were, the canon foundation, it is much easier to (and organises much neater for our articles) to follow that precedent and only kick up a fuss when a fuss needs to be kicked up! --8of5 02:25, June 22, 2010 (UTC)